Stadia development

[kingsway 94]

On 02/01/2024 at 22:54, percy varco said:

Flog the land for houses. Move to Postwick park and ride area and have new train station. 
Stadium doesnt have to be huge. 
Sorted. 

This scanario would see a similar situation to what you get at Brightons stadium in that cramped, overcrowded trains would ferry fans from Norwich station to the new station, a horrible experience which I've experienced myself when going from Brighton main station to the little station outside their ground! - This would mean all the fans coming from the London Liverpool St trains, the Cambridge line and even those fans of which theirs quite a lot of that use the Sheringham and Lowestoft lines would all then have a mass bundle into the train for Postwick! - This is another example of where its obvious when one goes through all the factors that the present ground is in the ideal location!

 

 

Edited January 3 by kingsway

[kingsway 94]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Currently the EA has the chance of a tidal flood event at Carrow Road as 1 in a thousand per annum.  Even if if those chances increased ten fold it only gets to about 1 in 100 and that is without mitigating actions. That you think it will be salt water demonstrates that beyond some scarey hyperbole you haven't really researched this very well. Perhaps you should share your insights with the City Council and Broads Authority as the Greater Norwich Local Plan has the land downstream of the ground between the Yare and the railway lines, including the May & Gurney site, earmarked for development.

Well since first attending games in the late 70's I can only recall once in all that time when the old carpark that was behind the River End Stand thats now covered with high rise apartments, was flooded and even then the floods didn't get anywhere our great stadium! - If you look closely at these apartments the bottom floor is unoccupied has flood defences and this bottom floor is raised higher than the riverbank so I'd say these measures mean that the chance of flooding to the stadium have diminished even more from the days when that land was the main club car park!

Edited January 3 by kingsway

[dylanisabaddog 5,021]

9 hours ago, BigFish said:

Currently the EA has the chance of a tidal flood event at Carrow Road as 1 in a thousand per annum.  Even if if those chances increased ten fold it only gets to about 1 in 100 and that is without mitigating actions. That you think it will be salt water demonstrates that beyond some scarey hyperbole you haven't really researched this very well. Perhaps you should share your insights with the City Council and Broads Authority as the Greater Norwich Local Plan has the land downstream of the ground between the Yare and the railway lines, including the May & Gurney site, earmarked for development.

We're not talking about now. We're talking about 25 years time. The threat to Norwich is caused by rising sea levels caused by climate change. You may choose to bury your head in the sand but I suggest you have a look at what has happened at Hemsby and Winterton before you do. 

I hope and think there is a solution to this potential problem but at the moment the people responsible in Norfolk don't have a plan. There is far more at stake for Norfolk than just NCFC. This will have a dramatic effect on people's homes and businesses. 

It would be nice to think that Norwich and Norfolk Councils are doing something but they're not. That is unacceptable, especially as we have the resources needed at the UEA. 

Perhaps they think it's "hyperbole" as well? 

https://rapidtransition.org/resources/playing-against-the-clock/

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/1.3143/52.6124/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=gtsr&slr_model=ipcc_2021_med

Here is the projection for the May Gurney site which as you rightly say is earmarked for development. Anyone thinking of buying there would have to be crazy. You may think this is all "hyperbole". In the words of Michael Gove "so called experts don't know what they're talking about". 

What is worrying is that several people on this site think the experts are talking nonsense but they have no scientific support for their views whatsoever. That includes our local councils who will allow the development to go ahead just like many others around the country over the last 30 years. 

Edit

The River Severn flooded Worcester in 2000 and the Environment Agency said it was a 1 in 50 years event. Since then it has happened 7 times. Today's flooding is way over the worst predictions of the EA. It should be noted that the problem in Worcester is purely rainwater and isn't affected by sea levels in the same way as Norfolk. 

 

Edited January 3 by dylanisabaddog

[City 2nd 191]

Why talk about developing the stadium of a dire football club?

[BigFish 1,988]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

We're not talking about now. We're talking about 25 years time. The threat to Norwich is caused by rising sea levels caused by climate change. You may choose to bury your head in the sand but I suggest you have a look at what has happened at Hemsby and Winterton before you do. 

I hope and think there is a solution to this potential problem but at the moment the people responsible in Norfolk don't have a plan. There is far more at stake for Norfolk than just NCFC. This will have a dramatic effect on people's homes and businesses. 

It would be nice to think that Norwich and Norfolk Councils are doing something but they're not. That is unacceptable, especially as we have the resources needed at the UEA. 

Perhaps they think it's "hyperbole" as well? 

https://rapidtransition.org/resources/playing-against-the-clock/

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/1.3143/52.6124/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=gtsr&slr_model=ipcc_2021_med

Here is the projection for the May Gurney site which as you rightly say is earmarked for development. Anyone thinking of buying there would have to be crazy. You may think this is all "hyperbole". In the words of Michael Gove "so called experts don't know what they're talking about". 

What is worrying is that several people on this site think the experts are talking nonsense but they have no scientific support for their views whatsoever. That includes our local councils who will allow the development to go ahead just like many others around the country over the last 30 years. 

 

The sources you use are not experts, one is a football writer the other is a US visualisation company. Neither are working in the area of climate change on a scientific basis. The projection doesn't actually show any change from the current situation. Good design can mitigate the risk, unless there is an expert who will say otherwise.

[Commonsense 652]

2 hours ago, City 2nd said:

Why talk about developing the stadium of a dire football club?

Why does somebody with nothing worthwhile to say want to contribute to its forum?

[dylanisabaddog 5,021]

25 minutes ago, BigFish said:

The sources you use are not experts, one is a football writer the other is a US visualisation company. Neither are working in the area of climate change on a scientific basis. The projection doesn't actually show any change from the current situation. Good design can mitigate the risk, unless there is an expert who will say otherwise.

Do you seriously not think these people are experts? The United Nations would beg to differ. For goodness sake! 

https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do

Climate Central's best-in-class global elevation data anchored visualizations and maps used at the 2021 UN Climate Conference to illustrate sea level rise projections. To date, our online maps and tools have been used more than 10 million times. Our 10-year-old Climate Matters program provides production-ready graphics and climate science reporting resources to meteorologists and journalists in 95% of U.S. media markets. Along with a small team of international experts, our scientists launched the groundbreaking World Weather Attribution, changing the narrative on links between climate change and individual extreme weather events. Our pioneering attribution work continues with the Climate Shift Index, which along with our other tools and data analyses support communication, planning and adaptation initiatives around the world.

[Number9 272]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Do you seriously not think these people are experts? The United Nations would beg to differ. For goodness sake! 

https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do

Climate Central's best-in-class global elevation data anchored visualizations and maps used at the 2021 UN Climate Conference to illustrate sea level rise projections. To date, our online maps and tools have been used more than 10 million times. Our 10-year-old Climate Matters program provides production-ready graphics and climate science reporting resources to meteorologists and journalists in 95% of U.S. media markets. Along with a small team of international experts, our scientists launched the groundbreaking World Weather Attribution, changing the narrative on links between climate change and individual extreme weather events. Our pioneering attribution work continues with the Climate Shift Index, which along with our other tools and data analyses support communication, planning and adaptation initiatives around the world.

Surely you recognise that the records scientists hang their hats on only go back as far as 1850ish.

For thousands of years prior to that,  world temperatures have risen and fallen quite dramatically but records weren't made.

If you're considering Hemsby for instance, why preclude Eccles from your data, yes it happened a long while ago so it doesn't fit the activists argument today, but village's have been lost to the sea historically, not just in your lifetime. 

This has happened around the world too, there's much which raises questions regarding the climate change theories.

Have you stood on the west coast & wondered about the sea going out so far & land being reclaimed?

Are you asking government why tidal surge power generation hasn't been built offshore at Hemsby to protect the coastline and provide virtually free power 24/7?

Too much politics and vested interest are involved in climate change I'm afraid. 

 

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Do you seriously not think these people are experts? The United Nations would beg to differ. For goodness sake! 

https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do

Climate Central's best-in-class global elevation data anchored visualizations and maps used at the 2021 UN Climate Conference to illustrate sea level rise projections. To date, our online maps and tools have been used more than 10 million times. Our 10-year-old Climate Matters program provides production-ready graphics and climate science reporting resources to meteorologists and journalists in 95% of U.S. media markets. Along with a small team of international experts, our scientists launched the groundbreaking World Weather Attribution, changing the narrative on links between climate change and individual extreme weather events. Our pioneering attribution work continues with the Climate Shift Index, which along with our other tools and data analyses support communication, planning and adaptation initiatives around the world.

So they do absolutely zero climate change research, but produce some pretty visualisations of other people's data?

And these are the experts you are citing, or rather using a visualisation model of a location on which they have done zero research.

Any development would come with a detailed Flood Risk Assessment, in which actual experts would visit the site and consider local factors as well as global ones. They would also consider mitigation factors such as @kingsway describes above, that were used in the housing by the river. There would be no issue considering advice from these experts, but random stuff from the Internet really carries no weight.

[shefcanary 2,489]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

The sources you use are not experts, one is a football writer the other is a US visualisation company. Neither are working in the area of climate change on a scientific basis. The projection doesn't actually show any change from the current situation. Good design can mitigate the risk, unless there is an expert who will say otherwise.

Also the key word is "flood" in all this. It is not "permanent change in sea level", which I accept would be scary and deserving of hyperbole. Perhaps in another 200 years without a change in human behaviour it might be different, but the signs are there the species is slowly getting its act together on that one. So, as stated above the protections already built around the ground in other developments will mean the risk of "long term issues" of the ground being underwater are extremely rare. 

By the way, I'm not saying Climate Change isn't a big issue, the threat to vast swathes of North Norfolk and the lowlands of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire is very real (Rotherham becoming Sheffield on Sea is a real possibility. But to say it is a reason why Carrow Road should not be redeveloped, oh come on.

[dylanisabaddog 5,021]

32 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Also the key word is "flood" in all this. It is not "permanent change in sea level", which I accept would be scary and deserving of hyperbole. Perhaps in another 200 years without a change in human behaviour it might be different, but the signs are there the species is slowly getting its act together on that one. So, as stated above the protections already built around the ground in other developments will mean the risk of "long term issues" of the ground being underwater are extremely rare. 

By the way, I'm not saying Climate Change isn't a big issue, the threat to vast swathes of North Norfolk and the lowlands of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire is very real (Rotherham becoming Sheffield on Sea is a real possibility. But to say it is a reason why Carrow Road should not be redeveloped, oh come on.

I absolutely despair. The organisation that has released this data is world leading. It is used by the United Nations. 

Look at projections from the UEA and University of Cambridge. The UEA is recognised worldwide for its work in this area. Other than them, there is a huge amount of data available on the last 30 years and just as much again on predictions for the next 30. Or you could just drive to Hemsby and see it with your own eyes. 

No one is suggesting Carrow Road will be permanently underwater but it will be on a regular basis (unless action is taken), enough to make regular football unsustainable. In case you didn't know, tides are affected by the lunar cycle which creates a risk every 4 weeks. 

And as for @BigFish, you suggest that a data gathering group using scientific evidence to produce reports used by the United Nations should be ignored. That just beggars belief. Your basis for ignoring the scientific data is that it is on the Internet. I have some magic marbles, would you like to buy some?

You have also gone very quiet over the financial side. You want the club to spend in excess of £100m over 25 years on seats that could well remain empty because - 

We stay in the Championship 

A European Super League is created (what a shock that would be) 

Your basis for spending this money is that a man who has been inside a football ground less than 10 times in his life will overcome all these problems and magically sell another 5,000 seats for every match for the next 25 years. 

Really? 

I'm a bit fed up with wasting my time talking to a couple of dinasours who have decided to ignore the world's finest scientists in their chosen field.  Perhaps you should tell the people who attend COP conferences that they're wasting their time. Just tell them you've looked out of the window and it will all be fine. Nothing to worry about whatsoever...... 

[essex canary 508]

7 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I absolutely despair. The organisation that has released this data is world leading. It is used by the United Nations. 

Look at projections from the UEA and University of Cambridge. The UEA is recognised worldwide for its work in this area. Other than them, there is a huge amount of data available on the last 30 years and just as much again on predictions for the next 30. Or you could just drive to Hemsby and see it with your own eyes. 

No one is suggesting Carrow Road will be permanently underwater but it will be on a regular basis (unless action is taken), enough to make regular football unsustainable. In case you didn't know, tides are affected by the lunar cycle which creates a risk every 4 weeks. 

And as for @BigFish, you suggest that a data gathering group using scientific evidence to produce reports used by the United Nations should be ignored. That just beggars belief. Your basis for ignoring the scientific data is that it is on the Internet. I have some magic marbles, would you like to buy some?

You have also gone very quiet over the financial side. You want the club to spend in excess of £100m over 25 years on seats that could well remain empty because - 

We stay in the Championship 

A European Super League is created (what a shock that would be) 

Your basis for spending this money is that a man who has been inside a football ground less than 10 times in his life will overcome all these problems and magically sell another 5,000 seats for every match for the next 25 years. 

Really? 

I'm a bit fed up with wasting my time talking to a couple of dinasours who have decided to ignore the world's finest scientists in their chosen field.  Perhaps you should tell the people who attend COP conferences that they're wasting their time. Just tell them you've looked out of the window and it will all be fine. Nothing to worry about whatsoever...... 

To be fair though @BigFish could be a good swimmer.

[shefcanary 2,489]

14 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm a bit fed up with wasting my time talking to a couple of dinasours who have decided to ignore the world's finest scientists in their chosen field. 

What an absolutely hysterical response. Dinosaur. Bloody hell, that's a bit rich. 

I recognise we have to start making changes now if we want to ensure that parts of Norfolk aren't permanently under the sea by 2050. I accept that the chances of Carrow Road flooding are increasing. But to say that means all development at Carrow Road has to stop is ridiculous. Should Norwich City be condemned to stand still (or worse relocate to a site that would actually increase the very thing you are campaigning against - i.e. increased travelling by relatively more unclean forms of transport) because political will across the globe is struggling to respond? 

In a more measured response, Carrow Road is still a better location for a football ground than most other sites in the UK, because of its transport links and because the land there is unlikely to be suitable for housing / industry in future years. Flooding is more likely to happen during the wettest periods in Norfolk, which actually tend to be during the summer when football usually takes a break, although I accept winters in future will be wetter (it might just be therefore that the football calendar adapts - there's a thing). Recent developments around Carrow Road have built in flood protection, that will continue, as will any future development of the ground.

Yes, we all need to do as much as possible to prevent a global climate catastrophe, I am doing as much as I can by walking more, driving less, recycling more, targeting my purchasing on sustainable products, even reducing my eating of meat. I'm sorry you find mine and Big Fish's more measured response such a challenge that you'll refuse to engage with us.  If you have that response to us two, how the hell you are going to persuade the wider population to take this issue seriously god knows. 

Calm down FFS. Carrow Road has to continue to adapt to meet the challenges, local, within football and within the world. Standing still is not an option unless you want the club to fade into obscurity.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The organisation that has released this data is world leading. It is used by the United Nations. 

No one is suggesting Carrow Road will be permanently underwater but it will be on a regular basis (unless action is taken), enough to make regular football unsustainable.

And as for @BigFish, you suggest that a data gathering group using scientific evidence to produce reports used by the United Nations should be ignored. That just beggars belief. Your basis for ignoring the scientific data is that it is on the Internet. I have some magic marbles, would you like to buy some?

I agree with pretty much everything @shefcanary posted on this matter.

The quibble is that the evidential basis you present is pretty much non-existent. Firstly, you say this organisation released data. This would appear to be untrue, what they do is visually represent other people's data. They may be part of the conversation, but they are certainly not world leading flooding scientists and they certainly have never considered flood risk at Carrow Road.

Secondly, you say Carrow Road will be underwater so regularly that football is unsustainable but offer up no scientist saying this, or evidence on why this might be the case. The synthesis here is all yours, the conclusion is all yours, it is largely untouched by scientific evidence. To achieve this you even have to discount what the Environment Agency publish, the government agency responsible for flood risk.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,458]

Practical flood risk involves 3 elements. Water falling from the sky (deluge) , surface runoff , and raising water levels. 
 

Carrow Road has a risk of all three. Deluge is an issue due to large scale downpours being on  the increase and the volume being channelled by , for example , large roof areas catching and collecting water which are condensed into drains and guttering . The Stand at a football ground add to this as the rooves have large surface areas. 
 

Surface runoff is a problem in the area mainly due to the “bowl” nature of the topography running down from the Thorpe Road area behind the Barclay) and the increased concrete .  The various construction work over the years adds to this risk by a) increasing the concrete and b blocking old drains or causing collapse . 
Don’t forget that half way up towards Thorpe  Road used to be a harbour! 

The third is water levels rising . The Wensum is tidal . When the tides are high and the wind is in the wrong direction the water doesn’t get out via the Broads as it should .

Water level rising  is statistically the least likely at the moment . Any flood mitigation will major on physical flood defence barriers which are expensive and require physical deployment in practice . 
 

By the  way the flats behind the river end are all built with flood in mind - they are all on stilts with car parking underneath . Thats a planning issue 
 

Data comes in two forms. Actual recorded data and forecast data. The floor with actual is that incidents of flooding in remote areas are not recorded and therefore in theory are not identified . A large field can be underwater but there is no motivation to report the flooding to the EA. Most EA real data is based around reporting and measurement . In order to be accurate they are relying on said reporting. Forecasting is model based. These are getting better but are still reliant on the sharing of real time data (from insurers, EA, landowners and other stakeholders) . Sharing of data is shrouded in difficulty - insurers claims details for example have potential GDPR issues. 
 

Other than that  I don’t much about it. 

[City 2nd 191]

7 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Why does somebody with nothing worthwhile to say want to contribute to its forum?

Nothing worthwhile to say! I contribute to this forum in more ways than one! You? I doubt it, No common sense!

[norfolkngood 1,092]

16 hours ago, kingsway said:

Well since first attending games in the late 70's I can only recall once in all that time when the old carpark that was behind the River End Stand thats now covered with high rise apartments, was flooded and even then the floods didn't get anywhere our great stadium! - If you look closely at these apartments the bottom floor is unoccupied has flood defences and this bottom floor is raised higher than the riverbank so I'd say these measures mean that the chance of flooding to the stadium have diminished even more from the days when that land was the main club car park!

 

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I absolutely despair. The organisation that has released this data is world leading. It is used by the United Nations. 

Look at projections from the UEA and University of Cambridge. The UEA is recognised worldwide for its work in this area. Other than them, there is a huge amount of data available on the last 30 years and just as much again on predictions for the next 30. Or you could just drive to Hemsby and see it with your own eyes. 

No one is suggesting Carrow Road will be permanently underwater but it will be on a regular basis (unless action is taken), enough to make regular football unsustainable. In case you didn't know, tides are affected by the lunar cycle which creates a risk every 4 weeks. 

And as for @BigFish, you suggest that a data gathering group using scientific evidence to produce reports used by the United Nations should be ignored. That just beggars belief. Your basis for ignoring the scientific data is that it is on the Internet. I have some magic marbles, would you like to buy some?

You have also gone very quiet over the financial side. You want the club to spend in excess of £100m over 25 years on seats that could well remain empty because - 

We stay in the Championship 

A European Super League is created (what a shock that would be) 

Your basis for spending this money is that a man who has been inside a football ground less than 10 times in his life will overcome all these problems and magically sell another 5,000 seats for every match for the next 25 years. 

Really? 

I'm a bit fed up with wasting my time talking to a couple of dinasours who have decided to ignore the world's finest scientists in their chosen field.  Perhaps you should tell the people who attend COP conferences that they're wasting their time. Just tell them you've looked out of the window and it will all be fine. Nothing to worry about whatsoever...... 

i have seen photos from 1874 from top of Colman's Carrow works across to Railway station 

The whole area where the Stadium and right to station was nothing but Marshland and flooded really badly , 

a lot of work has been done over the years obviously and how they have built so much on top of that land is Amazing ,

but i wonder if it is classed as a floodplain due to Historical flooding in past ? 

 

[percy varco 202]

20 hours ago, kingsway said:

This scanario would see a similar situation to what you get at Brightons stadium in that cramped, overcrowded trains would ferry fans from Norwich station to the new station, a horrible experience which I've experienced myself when going from Brighton main station to the little station outside their ground! - This would mean all the fans coming from the London Liverpool trains, the Cambridge line and even those fans of which theirs quite a lot of that use the Sheringham and Lowestoft lines would all then have a mass bundle into the train for Postwick! - This is another example of where its obvious when one goes through all the factors that the present ground is in the ideal location!

 

There are bigger trains. 
There are busses. 
there can be parking. 
not everybody lives in the city and can walk to the game, many already use alternative methods. 
More joined up thinking needed. 

[kingsway 94]

What line would a train station at Postwick be on? - Either the Yarmouth or Lowestoft lines which are renowned for being unreliable rather relic branch lines!

 

People would tire of the train and end up driving which would mean even more traffic near the ground and it would taske longer to get away from!

 

The amount of money needed to be spent on a new train station and improvements to the line would be extremely prohibitive for both the football club and the cash strapped government and Railway Companies.

 

I agree not everyone lives in the City and I'm sure a large % of the clubs season ticket holders indeed don't live in the City and I bet not many in the Postwick area so in reality moving the stadium to Postwick would cause more issues than solve them. Out of Town/City stadiums are not the answer.

 

Carrow Road is the Perfect location for Norwich Citys stadium and like I said before the chances of flooding is certainly there with the river close by but isn't a regular occurance event.

 

Remember the Friday in November when it didn't stop raining all day and lots of areas in East Anglia were serverely flooded? Well I know for a fact cause I saw it with own eyes that the Wensum in front of the flats behind the River End got as expected very high but the water only flooded over the grass riverbanks, not even flooding the pathway. - And this rare extreme weather event was one of the worst days of rainfall ever recorded in modern times!

 

Could anyone please give me a date of when the stadium and pitch at Carrow Road has been flooded by the river in the near 89 year history of the ground? - I've never seen any evidence of it happening and I'm a keen consumer of reading anything Norwich City FC related!

Edited January 4 by kingsway

[percy varco 202]

3 hours ago, kingsway said:

What line would a train station at Postwick be on? - Either the Yarmouth or Lowestoft lines which are renowned for being unreliable rather relic branch lines!

 

People would tire of the train and end up driving which would mean even more traffic near the ground and it would taske longer to get away from!

 

The amount of money needed to be spent on a new train station and improvements to the line would be extremely prohibitive for both the football club and the cash strapped government and Railway Companies.

 

I agree not everyone lives in the City and I'm sure a large % of the clubs season ticket holders indeed don't live in the City and I bet not many in the Postwick area so in reality moving the stadium to Postwick would cause more issues than solve them. Out of Town/City stadiums are not the answer.

 

Carrow Road is the Perfect location for Norwich Citys stadium and like I said before the chances of flooding is certainly there with the river close by but isn't a regular occurance event.

 

Remember the Friday in November when it didn't stop raining all day and lots of areas in East Anglia were serverely flooded? Well I know for a fact cause I saw it with own eyes that the Wensum in front of the flats behind the River End got as expected very high but the water only flooded over the grass riverbanks, not even flooding the pathway. - And this rare extreme weather event was one of the worst days of rainfall ever recorded in modern times!

 

Could anyone please give me a date of when the stadium and pitch at Carrow Road has been flooded by the river in the near 89 year history of the ground? - I've never seen any evidence of it happening and I'm a keen comsumer of reading anything Norwich City FC related!

The flooding concern is not worth worrying about. Computer projected nonsense. 
(not a climate change denier before many leap on)

the Postwick P&R railway stn has been discussed for years, the building runs parrallel to the track. Wouldn’t it be an asset to the Fine City all week? Just needs some continued forward thinking.

how ever did we manage to move from The Nest? Its located near to many houses for STs to walk.

so its Carrow Road only as it works for some but is a hassle for some others.

Don’t like change?

[Yobocop 1,105]

15 hours ago, City 2nd said:

Nothing worthwhile to say! I contribute to this forum in more ways than one! You? I doubt it, No common sense!

How many other ways do you contribute other than posting? 

not having a go, just curious 

[Yobocop 1,105]

10 hours ago, percy varco said:

There are bigger trains. 
There are busses. 
there can be parking. 
not everybody lives in the city and can walk to the game, many already use alternative methods. 
More joined up thinking needed. 

Then don’t move the stadium from an already prime location to the outskirts of town 

I do hate to keep harping on about Luton but their new stadium is still in the town centre as they know the value of having it there 

[TIL 1010 4,802]

13 hours ago, percy varco said:

There are bigger trains. 
There are busses. 
there can be parking. 
not everybody lives in the city and can walk to the game, many already use alternative methods. 
More joined up thinking needed. 

I doubt very much if you have been to Brighton from this post as everybody still drinks in Brighton town centre and crams onto the latest trains possible to get to the game so you don't think that will happen with Spooooons on Riverside, Coach and Horses on Thorpe Road, Compleat Angler and the likes of Pogue Mahons on POW Road ?

Moving on to buses where do you suggest they run from ?

[shefcanary 2,489]

Can anyone even remember a match at Carrow Raod being postponed because of a waterlogged pitch?

In my recollection postponements have only been due to frost or snow, and since the undersoil heating was installed that has only happened I think once when it broke, with another postponement because the surrounding walkways etc. were unsafe for spectators. 

[Mello Yello 2,306]

Keep Carrow Road at Carrow Road.....Otherwise it'll be like the Madejski (or whatever they currently call it at Reading)....A middle of a nowhere soulless stadium.... 

[percy varco 202]

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I doubt very much if you have been to Brighton from this post as everybody still drinks in Brighton town centre and crams onto the latest trains possible to get to the game so you don't think that will happen with Spooooons on Riverside, Coach and Horses on Thorpe Road, Compleat Angler and the likes of Pogue Mahons on POW Road ?

Moving on to buses where do you suggest they run from ?

Not all 28k are in spoons or wherever until last minute. 
I have been to Brighton. Yes the train was crammed but I also used the Yarmouth train which was like Indian Railways as it had 1 carriage, this was before the new trains. 
At Brighton they kept the bars open after the game to encourage us to stay. 

It would be interesting to establish where people travel from and how. This is now done at other large events. 
All I am saying that this forum is either concerned about flooding or running from the pub  at 2.45. 

Why not consider other options

[shefcanary 2,489]

2 minutes ago, percy varco said:

At Brighton they kept the bars open after the game to encourage us to stay

Wow, surely that can't make financial sense? 😉 The Lion & Castle is part one of the Brighton dream ....

[essex canary 508]

25 minutes ago, percy varco said:

It would be interesting to establish where people travel from.

The first step would be to insist that everyone enters with their own membership card even when borrowing from a season ticket holder. 

[Greavsy 2,452]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The first step would be to insist that everyone enters with their own membership card even when borrowing from a season ticket holder. 

The steward on our gate doesnt even look at the machine when you offer your card up, how is that going to be monitored / utilised. 

putting the access from the season ticket onto a membership cards comes at a cost - and the club wont cover it. The attending person has a card that would work (the ST),  or one that he has to pay to get upgraded (their membership) - Absolutely no appetite for that at all.

Then assuming that happens what if the card doesnt work (we have had that more that once on official season tickets, and you have to prove ID to the ticket office - you wont have that for the season ticket! 

Do you think through your hairbrained ideas before you post them ? 

Edited January 4 by Greavsy

[kingsway 94]

13 hours ago, percy varco said:

The flooding concern is not worth worrying about. Computer projected nonsense. 
(not a climate change denier before many leap on)

the Postwick P&R railway stn has been discussed for years, the building runs parrallel to the track. Wouldn’t it be an asset to the Fine City all week? Just needs some continued forward thinking.

how ever did we manage to move from The Nest? Its located near to many houses for STs to walk.

so its Carrow Road only as it works for some but is a hassle for some others.

Don’t like change?

The flooding concern like you say is not worth worrying about cause even if water levels rose then the measures in place would be sufficient and like I've said before and others have said the pitch has never been under water in the 89 year history of the stadium and if the wet November Friday of last year still didn't see the ground flooded out then its highly unlikely to ever happen!

 

The Nest was condemned so they had to move and they chose a very good place!

 

Carrow Road works for the majority and don't ever underestimate the matchday atmosphere in the City through being able to walk out of the City a short distance to the ground or be able to walk 10 minutes from the station to the ground! 

 

I like change if its for the best not change just for the sake of it!

Edited January 4 by kingsway